Yeah, they really stepped it up against us huh... GB did what they needed to do to get to the SB and win, congrats to them. But that doesn't mean they were the best team. The matchups they got helped them to get where they did and win, awesome, but it only takes one better team one slip up one game at the wrong time to make it to get themselves out. Lucky for GB, they didn't in the playoffs. I think it is easily said that NE is a better team, they just had a slip-up at the wrong time to a team they DESTROYED a few weeks back and lost the first game to. In fact, they beat GB in the regular season head on match up.

Look, the NFL set up a way to choose a winner each year. It is no better or worse than picking the twp best teams and playing them. There is no more confidence, there is no more sustenance past acceptance. Placing more importance on playoff games is only a product of the system chosen. It works, it is fun, it is exciting. But the Superbowl winner doesn't crown the best team, rather the team that can survive. Play that same playoff scenario 100 different times and you get tens of different results. What does that mean? It means that it only tells use given that setup and time who will come out on top.

It is no better or worse than picking the twp best teams and playing them.

That is where you are wrong cause it is better. The Pats vs the Falcons would have been your matchup but instead we got two teams that earned it and proved themselves worthy. The #1 defense vs the #2 defense (that is where both the Pats and Dirty Birds got exposed once they got to the playoffs.

Can anyone answer me why the week 18 game is championship material and week 17 is not? Anyone? Here is the deal... you value the playoff game because it is important to the current sport not because it has any more or less value than the regular season game. Why isn't winning the regular season championship material? 16 games, maybe even 18 soon, against LOTS of opponents. Pick the best two to make sure and have them play. Pats played and beat numerous very tough opponents but had an off week against the Jets so suddenly they are not good. That is circular logic Pablo. Packers v Steelers is no more championship material than Falcons v New England. What people don't understand is that it is pretty much a wash. Packers got lucky they had their bad games in the regular season, New England and the Flacons are unlucky they had their bad game in the playoffs. What is the difference? Artificial important on the later games because that is the system. I'm not asking to change the NFL system, it works great for the NFL, it fits the needs and the goal. But it doesn't produce better match ups, history proves that. It does make exciting football.

If anyone can tell me that the same teams matched up different way or played at different times would result in the exact two teams every single time then you win, but we all know that first round match ups swapped around or time changes and we have at least one different team at the Super Bowl if not two every single time. What that proves is that it is a random event based on how the cards line up. We just get some artificial satisfaction that we "made them play each other." Essentially, it is just better "accepted" but doesn't do any better a job.

Can anyone answer me why the week 18 game is championship material and week 17 is not?

Because you win and survive or go home. Quite simple really. In the regular season the Packers could lose to a team like Detroit - big deal. But in the playoffs they had to beat Philly, Atlanta, Chicago and Pittsburgh to earn a championship. No misteps, just win baby.

Your top two seeds, NE and ATL couldn't win ONE playoff game (at home none the less) while the Pack won all FOUR (none at home). That is earning it my friend and much better than a coronation of the regular season champ.

"big deal" ONLY because we have said that X games are important and Y games are not. it is a self fulfilling prophecy... you say "couldn't win one playoff game" yet they played and beat both teams they lost to in the playoffs. It isn't about one team being better than the other, it is getting the right timing and matchup. The Packers weren't any more or less prepared Week 11 when they lost to the Falcons compared to their first week in the playoffs. Neither were the Jets more or prepared week 13 when they lost to the Patriots compared to their playoff game. The luck of the draw is what decided the outcomes. You move the game by one hour and a whole different outcome ensues... what does that say about the validity of any system? A playoff system is just a BCS system with more variables because of more teams and more weeks. Might as just take the historical statistics and draw cards with those odds, you'll come just as close to getting it right as looking at match ups and football stats.

Pablo, you use circular logic to say that playoff games are more important. The system set up now, which I am not suggesting changing, puts less importance on regular season games and more on playoff games. Put in a different system and that all changes, like in college football were regular season games matter just as much. Facts are, either system pits good teams vs good teams but usually not best teams vs best teams. It's all about picking the right cards.

Yes, if you set up your system to have a playoff then playoff games are more important. If you don't have that system and you are objectively looking at lots of other options then a system without playoffs can make the regular season just as important as a playoff game for another system. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. A regular season game is no less important in college football than a playoff game in pro football. They are essentially the same importance. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, if you set up your system to have a playoff then playoff games are more important. If you don't have that system and you are objectively looking at lots of other options then a system without playoffs can make the regular season just as important as a playoff game for another system. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. A regular season game is no less important in college football than a playoff game in pro football. They are essentially the same importance. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Same importance? Then you must be saying that no one loss team has ever won the national championship - or the mythical national championship as many say.

In-other-words, you are saying that Ohio States games this last year against the likes of Marshall, Ohio and Eastern Michigan is of the same importance as say the Super Bowl - interesting, I've certainly never thought of them on equal terms.

There is a NT game, so the Super Bowl is equivalent to the NT game. OSU's games against Marshall, Ohio, Eastern are just as important to OSU for a chance at a NT as the first round playoff games. If OSU loses, they have no chance for a NT, so for OSU, it is just as important. Heck, they lost to a decent Wisconsin team and they had no chance this year. Again, the importance is relative to the matchup accept for the two teams playing. When teams like Alabama line up against Auburn last year during the regular season, that is like a BIG playoff game. When OSU lines up against Marshall in the regular season, for OSU it has the same importance as a playoff game but maybe not the same interest to the rest of the country as they are expected to win. Simply look at the UM upset by App State... UM, ranked #5... that win was just as important as any game on their schedule that season. Might not have been a nationally televised event that everyone wanted to watch, but for UM, it was one of the most important loses ever and the greatest college football upset of all time.

About one loss teams in the NT game, sure, there is a chance you can make it and some have, OSU in 2003 for example... But it is almost a death sentence. You are talking about the exception not the rule. Either way, the importance doesn't change if it isn't a death sentence, just because it isn't a 100% deal breaker it is still a 95% deal breaker. You are over exaggerating the 5%...

Yes, ALMOST. And 5% is not 100%, hence the difference. In this backwards systems things like who you lose to, when you lose, how much you win by, etc all play a role and that is a severly flawed system.

Here is a HUGE point you also seem to miss. When you do lose a game, assuming your chance at the NT game is over, the importance of regular season games takes a HUGE drop. Again, can't compare a regular season to a playoff system.

In the NFL, say GB played PITT in the first game of the season - imagine if the loser was out of the title hunt for the rest of the season...

When the variance in outcomes of a playoff system is more than 5%, I'm sure that the not being 100% is really meaningless. The variance in outcomes of a playoff system in fact WAY outpace the minimal % of impact of not winning 100% of your games. When I can change one variable of the playoff match ups and get 100% of a change in outcome... where is the 100% in that? Certainly not importance or reliability. The playoff are no better than drawing straws... they make people feel more confident, but in all reality if I can move a game by 1 hour and get a 100% change in results then it doesn't do well for your 100% nonsense.

Look Pablo... if you PERSONALLY like the playoff system that is cool, your call. But you have to admit 100% that the outcome of the playoffs does not the crown the best team or the top champion for that year. It only crowns the best team, for those circumstances, with those match ups, at those times. If you can admit that a slight change in playoff lineup and game times would most likely mean totally different results, but you are willing to accept that variance to peace of mind because you like it better... then we can agree to disagree on what makes us "comfortable" is different.

Statistically, with real data, there is no benefit to a playoff system over the BCS system. The records for match ups as well are just as bad for one as the other. All data imploring these two methods show no better results than the other. No one can, from data, argue one better than the other because it simply is not true from the data. In practice, neither one is better than the other. It comes down to personal preference... and in that arena, no one can argue either side because it is only personal preference on confidence in the system, end of story.

If you can agree it is only about personal preference, then we can agree to disagree. The data doesn't support using one or the other...

I'm sure I"m going to regret this, but steensn what do YOU consider "the best team" to be? What qualifications are required for a team to be considered the "Best" in your eyes? How do you define the Champion?

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

February 14th, 2011, 2:21 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9985Location: Dallas

Re: TCU Won't Play a Rematch Game

steensn wrote:

Look Pablo... if you PERSONALLY like the playoff system that is cool, your call. But you have to admit 100% that the outcome of the playoffs does not the crown the best team or the top champion for that year. It only crowns the best team, for those circumstances, with those match ups, at those times. If you can admit that a slight change in playoff lineup and game times would most likely mean totally different results, but you are willing to accept that variance to peace of mind because you like it better... then we can agree to disagree on what makes us "comfortable" is different.

You make a decent point here, but the same can be reversed on any given Saturday/Sunday - the best team does not always win just like a playoff. So IF we can agree on that point we have somewhere to start.

Going off that logic, I believe there is a better chance of the "BEST" team to win in a playoff since it is fewer games than a say 13 game season. Say your QB gets knocked out for a game or two and you lose one - better luck next year. Slight changes, different outcomes, more regular season games so more opportunities for the BEST team to lose using your logic.

I think Alabama was the best team this year, yes they lost to Auburn but simply relaxed when they got up 20+ points. Not sure where TCU really ranked, can't really find out.

You might think the Pats were the best team, then again GB almost beat them on the road without Rodgers in December. The Packers outgained the Pats by 120 yards and had 26 first downs to just 14 for NE and had the ball over 40 minutes. If they lost a game like this in college, oh well season over, in the pros they can come back and prove they are the champions that they really are.

I'm sure I"m going to regret this, but steensn what do YOU consider "the best team" to be? What qualifications are required for a team to be considered the "Best" in your eyes? How do you define the Champion?

I should never be a voter... to be perfectly honest. I would have picked New England with no question in my mind. They beat many VERY good teams, one lose was to a team they also beat and the other was a bad week which everyone has. I would have pit them against Atlanta, for the same reasons. They would have played out, for the championship match up. A champion is a team that within the defined rules wins a defined contest. So it can be a round robin tourney, single elimination, double elimination, play a bunch and pick the top X teams to do a playoff (this is the BCS style with one game only though).

Look Pablo... if you PERSONALLY like the playoff system that is cool, your call. But you have to admit 100% that the outcome of the playoffs does not the crown the best team or the top champion for that year. It only crowns the best team, for those circumstances, with those match ups, at those times. If you can admit that a slight change in playoff lineup and game times would most likely mean totally different results, but you are willing to accept that variance to peace of mind because you like it better... then we can agree to disagree on what makes us "comfortable" is different.

You make a decent point here, but the same can be reversed on any given Saturday/Sunday - the best team does not always win just like a playoff. So IF we can agree on that point we have somewhere to start.

Going off that logic, I believe there is a better chance of the "BEST" team to win in a playoff since it is fewer games than a say 13 game season. Say your QB gets knocked out for a game or two and you lose one - better luck next year. Slight changes, different outcomes, more regular season games so more opportunities for the BEST team to lose using your logic.

I think Alabama was the best team this year, yes they lost to Auburn but simply relaxed when they got up 20+ points. Not sure where TCU really ranked, can't really find out.

You might think the Pats were the best team, then again GB almost beat them on the road without Rodgers in December. The Packers outgained the Pats by 120 yards and had 26 first downs to just 14 for NE and had the ball over 40 minutes. If they lost a game like this in college, oh well season over, in the pros they can come back and prove they are the champions that they really are.

I agree on Auburn was not the best team, but that is why no system is perfect. I do not say the BCS is the best system nor do I think the the NFL playoff system is the best system. I think the sport and level should pick the system that best fits their needs. No matter what they pick they will get a different outcome and an extremely VARIABLE outcome. Auburn caught a sleeping Alabama of guard, Alabama loses out. Outcome of that is that the better team did not advance as far as it should have. In the BCS system though, small discrepancies like that can be accounted for because of human opinion. it also makes sure teams like TCU who have cake schedules don't leapfrog a team like Auburn who got it done against the nations top teams. In a playoff system, Auburn could hiccup against a team like Wisconsin, who is surely not NC material, and be left out in the first round. Neither result in playoffs, leaving out a better team hands down but lost because of match up, or leaving out Alabama who slipped up in the regular season is ideal... but both result in imperfect results by anyones standards.

My point is, switching to a playoff system DOES NOT fix the quality of a champion nor does it get the best team on top. It simply gives an outcome that a lot of people feel comfortable with. Statistics and historical wise, neither one is better than the other in getting an outcome. People seem more willing to ignore or accept the shortcomings of the playoff system... and that is totally fine. I just hate it when people act like it is the real SOLUTION that provides better results, because it doesn't and I believe through statistics and results that is CLEAR.

We bring up GB and the Patriots losing out, but change the kickoff of the Jets Pats game and the results are completely different. This goes for the NC game in the BCS as well and some of the huge upsets in the regular season. It spans all systems... but when you force teams to go through MORE games in a playoff system you compound the drawbacks of a playoff system. it is heck-a-fun, love the NCAA basketball tourney, it just adds to the ability for bad games and upsets to occur at bad times for better teams. Fun, but not "better." In the same way, the BCS with it's 13 game regular season schedule is it's own fun, watching week by week for upsets and the changing rankings. One (or two) slip up and a team is likely out as we saw from Alabama who was a better team than they ranked, it is fun in it's own rights and but leaves out teams that just had a bad week. All the drawbacks are the same, the results are the same as well.